ojhunt wrote: > > I _think_ doing it as a follow up makes sense: it's not a matter of me not > > wanting to do this for linux, it's that I cannot test it at all. Doing it > > as a follow up would also give you the constants block to put the > > definition rather than having it just slotted in the code. I've found > > moving to the constant blocks to be incredibly useful for being able to see > > where/how they cross ABI boundaries. > > @ojhunt Thanks! So could you please adopt the code snippet from my previous > comment to make things explicitly unsupported for Linux? > > And also I kindly ask you to fix p.4 from [#143230 > (comment)](https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/143230#issuecomment-3249013139) > (we've already discussed that in Discord). Please let me know if you need > any help. > > A couple of things are on my side: > > 1. Compile a local pac-ret-enabled toolchain. This would allow you to fix p.3 > from the same comment. I'll let you know when it's ready.
In _principle_ I could set up this configuration right? (Obviously not actually test it, but in principle at least be able to verify it builds before pushing the update) > 2. Look through other comments in this PR (they have lower priority since > they are not related to any runtime/compile-time failures). I'll highlight > the ones which I think are worth fixing in scope of this PR (if any). > > Please let me know if I've missed smth or if you have any objections on this > plan. GH makes finding these things so utterly miserable. I hate it so very much. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/143230 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
